Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 20NWCV00430, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20NWCV00430    Hearing Date: May 23, 2023    Dept: C

VILLANUEVA v. MAGAT

CASE NO.:  20NWCV00430

HEARING:  5/23/23 @ 1:30 PM

#9

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs Renato and Myrrha Villanueva’s unopposed motion to enter judgment pursuant to settlement is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiffs Renato and Myrrha Villanueva move for judgment pursuant to CCP § 664.6.

If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.  If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.  (CCP § 664.6.)  The agreement must be sufficiently definite to enable courts to give it an exact meaning.  If an essential element is reserved for future agreement, it is not sufficiently definite.  (See Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4^th 793, 810-812.)  The Court is authorized to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement that is orally stipulated to before the Court.  (Estate of Dipinto (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 625.)

On January 26, 2023, Defendant Magat appeared before the court and agreed to sell the property and cooperate with the listing agent to facilitate the sale of the property.  Plaintiff’s counsel was ordered:  “to prepare an Interlocutory Judgment which shall include the following language: the listing extension of 90 days, the provision that all parties are to cooperate with the signing of all necessary documents in order to facilitate the sale of the property, that either party may make a request of the court for an order to have the clerk of the clerk sign off on behalf of the party who is failing to cooperate, and the provision reserving the court's jurisdiction to appoint a receiver.  Counsel to prepare, circulate for signature and e-file Interlocutory Judgment prior to the next hearing date.”  (1/26/23 Minute Order.)

Thereafter, Defendant refused to sign the Interlocutory Judgment.

The court finds that the oral stipulation is sufficiently definite and may be enforced.  There is no opposition.  The court is inclined to appoint a receiver to facilitate the sale of the subject property, pursuant to the understanding of the parties and the court as reflected in the January 26, 2023 minute order. 

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.